Originally posted by inimalist
well, to be fair, if it has "good" you aren't talking about the "worst-possible-suffering-universe". In theory, the most-suffering-universe would have no good aspect, sort of by definition.
As an abstract, yes, but what are you comparing it too? What if all universes are good, except for this one, which is mostly bad? Then out of all universes this is the "worst-possible-suffering-universe". I do understand what you are saying, but is an absolute really part of science?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
As an abstract, yes, but what are you comparing it too? What if all universes are good, except for this one, which is mostly bad? Then out of all universes this is the "worst-possible-suffering-universe". I do understand what you are saying, but is an absolute really part of science?
oh, this universe isn't supposed to be scientific in any way. It is a thought experiment.
One of the common retorts against objective morality is that you can't, at some absolute level, say that suffering is "bad". I think the example of this "most-suffering" universe shows, at the very least, a severe limitation to that point, basically in that, I agree with Harris when he says "If you can't say that the most-suffering universe is bad... You don't know what you are talking about". It demonstrates how that criticism is more about how we define words or the subjectivity of language, nothing about the subjectivity of moral principles.
I agree, any universe that does exist will have shades of both good and bad, but as an abstraction, I think the theoretical "most-suffering" does present a challenge to relative morality.
Originally posted by inimalist
oh, this universe isn't supposed to be scientific in any way. It is a thought experiment.One of the common retorts against objective morality is that you can't, at some absolute level, say that suffering is "bad". I think the example of this "most-suffering" universe shows, at the very least, a severe limitation to that point, basically in that, I agree with Harris when he says "If you can't say that the most-suffering universe is bad... You don't know what you are talking about". It demonstrates how that criticism is more about how we define words or the subjectivity of language, nothing about the subjectivity of moral principles.
I agree, any universe that does exist will have shades of both good and bad, but as an abstraction, I think the theoretical "most-suffering" does present a challenge to relative morality.
Yes, the "most-suffering-universe" is an absolute. Of course that challenges relative morality. Absolute and relative are mutually exclusive. Don't you think?
Originally posted by inimalist
oh, this universe isn't supposed to be scientific in any way. It is a thought experiment.One of the common retorts against objective morality is that you can't, at some absolute level, say that suffering is "bad". I think the example of this "most-suffering" universe shows, at the very least, a severe limitation to that point, basically in that, I agree with Harris when he says "If you can't say that the most-suffering universe is bad... You don't know what you are talking about". It demonstrates how that criticism is more about how we define words or the subjectivity of language, nothing about the subjectivity of moral principles.
I agree, any universe that does exist will have shades of both good and bad, but as an abstraction, I think the theoretical "most-suffering" does present a challenge to relative morality.
I think the primary challenge of a relativist at this point would amount to a discussion on the "middle ground" of morality, where things aren't in such stark contrast. Even if you can establish a criteria for good/bad (in this case, suffering) to decide between right and wrong in some situations will require assigning values to certain peoples' suffering or happiness, which is where I think the true test would lie for an objectivist.
Because I can't think of a relativist counter to calling the most-possible-suffering universe bad, but I also think it's something of a straw man. Maybe I'm misunderstanding though.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, the "most-suffering-universe" is an absolute. Of course that challenges relative morality. Absolute and relative are mutually exclusive. Don't you think?
thats the thing though. imho at least, for moral relativism to be true, it would, by definition, be impossible to create a universe which necessitated the definition "bad"
I'd contrast this with something like colour. Sure, we have linguistic symbols, "red", "blue", "yellow", the same as "bad" and "good" for morality, but there is no real intrinsic quality for which "red" or "blue" describe. So, in theory, you could have a "bluest-possible-universe", but it would be literally interchangeable from "reddest-possible-universe", such that you could interchange the symbols, "red" and "blue", and the outcome of the universe would be no different. The decision to call some wavelengths one thing, and some another, is almost entirely a subjective decision that humans made at some point, and it wouldn't change much about the universe to have selected different wavelengths, etc. "Bad" and "good" are not interchangeable in such a way, as the abstract quality they describe does change. You couldn't interchange the concept that "bad" represents with the concept that "good" does. Because of this, relative morality cannot be an "absolute" principle. They aren't just symbols we use to characterize a subset of a certain phenomenon.
Originally posted by Digi
I think the primary challenge of a relativist at this point would amount to a discussion on the "middle ground" of morality, where things aren't in such stark contrast. Even if you can establish a criteria for good/bad (in this case, suffering) to decide between right and wrong in some situations will require assigning values to certain peoples' suffering or happiness, which is where I think the true test would lie for an objectivist.
that is almost like saying the "true test" for physicists lies in being able to describe and place a value on every force and atom in a massively complex system. which really isn't the case.
The point is that objective knowledge and empiricism can be the basis for morality. Actually, the example Harris uses is really good. He compares morality with physical health. It is nearly impossible to say what someone's physical health is at any moment, because there are thousands of possible measures, ways of defining it, context, etc. However, such complications don't produce "health relativists", rather, they produce many fields of study dedicated to observational inquiry about what does or does not increase physical health, even though some overall quantification of it may be impossible. I can't think of any reason why morality couldn't be treated equally, and certainly, principles like consent, protection of innocent/children, personal responsibility, harm by action vs inaction already have a good deal of research behind them in terms of describing how people asses these issues morally and behaviourally.
Like, we know eating broccoli is healthy. We can't put specific number on it that denotes the amount of health you get from it, but I have never seen a broccoli relativist arguing that the inability to place such a number undermines the practice of eating broccoli in the first place.
Originally posted by Digi
Because I can't think of a relativist counter to calling the most-possible-suffering universe bad, but I also think it's something of a straw man. Maybe I'm misunderstanding though.
thats sort of the point though. The fact that it is such a straw-man shows a massive failure for relative morals.
I like the argument about subsets of physical health. It's a good analogy.
Part of me wants to turn to the bastion of subjective reality advocates, that we can't know the universe in an objective sense due to the subjective nature of our consciousness. So the question of the existence of objective morality is moot, because we can't ever know it even if it does exist.
Hardcore empiricists might argue with me there. But that subjectivist argument also feels like a retreat in the first place...clinging to a technical point to avoid one that has much more practical use.
FYI: Stop calling Neil deGrasse Tyson an atheist.
I like this guy...quite a bit.
This has been a problem even on these boards (I have, personally, found this board to have the most open-minded and level-headed places to discuss religion) with bringing all that "baggage" when we bust out labels.
Originally posted by dadudemon
FYI: Stop calling Neil deGrasse Tyson an atheist.I like this guy...quite a bit.
This has been a problem even on these boards (I have, personally, found this board to have the most open-minded and level-headed places to discuss religion) with bringing all that "baggage" when we bust out labels.
lol
this is literally the same argument I made to you, after which you first insisted I was an atheist, then an agnostic...
dick-ride much?
Originally posted by inimalist
lolthis is literally the same argument I made to you, after which you first insisted I was an atheist, then an agnostic...
dick-ride much?
It would appear that you already forgot that post you made (though you clarified later that it was in jest) where you said, basically, you were a gnostic atheist, remember? 🙂
And, no, you have never made that argument to me about your position. 😐 If you would like, you can quote where you made his exact argument to me.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It would appear that you already forgot that post you made (though you clarified later that it was in jest) where you said, basically, you were a gnostic atheist, remember? 🙂
considering I don't consider myself an atheist, no, I don't remember ever referring to myself in that way
Originally posted by dadudemon
And, no, you have never made that argument to me about your position. 😐 If you would like, you can quote where you made his exact argument to me.
It was in the thread where we were talking about "know" vs "believe". I said I don't consider myself an atheist, for many of the reasons Tyson suggests (though, I'm more concerned with how that baggage impacts the individual who holds it, rather than the perceptions of society), and you said it didn't matter, because I don't believe in God I am an atheist, even though I don't believe myself to be an atheist or identify as an atheist.
I then talked about how the distinction between "believe" and "know" is an illusion because of how minds work in general, accepting that there is some type of evidence that might eventually make me believe in God, which you said made me an agnostic, a position I have very little intellectual respect for.
Though we emphasize some different aspects of the problem with "atheism" as a term or term of self-identification, our position on it is essentially identical. Further, though he calls it "agnostic", and only after being prodded about it, our position on being open to new evidence about anything is the same, and additionally, neither of us would really consider the disagreement between this being agnostic or atheistic as important, because neither of us care about those labels in the first place.
Though I've never used it here, I have verbatim said things like, "I'm not an atheist, I'm a scientist", though I try not to because most people then accuse you of religifying science. Its the type of statement only scientists are going to understand really.
I only came across Tyson recently, and hadn't seen this, but it is in the very same vein as Harris' opinions on the term, and entirely in line with my attraction to anarchism and deconstructing the way we are, ourselves, participants and creators of the oppression that authoritative institutions produce. Harris, this type of deconstruction of institutions, that is like some of the most formative stuff in my personal beliefs.
Originally posted by inimalist
considering I don't consider myself an atheist, no, I don't remember ever referring to myself in that way
lol
This is like...the same exact conversation we had last time where I quoted you and showed you were you stated you (you clarified and said it was jest) were an gnostic atheist using the chart.
Originally posted by inimalist
accepting that there is some type of evidence that might eventually make me believe in God, which you said made me an agnostic, a position I have very little intellectual respect for.
You're extremely agnostic with statements like those. In fact, I would say you're closer to "not atheist" than Huxley because Huxley would be defined, in modern terms, as an agnostic atheist.
So why would you have such little intellectual respect for such a label? It is literally the most intellectually honest position a scientist can take.
Originally posted by inimalist
additionally, neither of us would really consider the disagreement between this being agnostic or atheistic as important, because neither of us care about those labels in the first place.
It's the fear of the labels due to the baggage that he spoke of and you are in agreement over.
Originally posted by inimalist
Though I've never used it here, I have verbatim said things like, "I'm not an atheist, I'm a scientist", though I try not to because most people then accuse you of religifying science. [b]Its the type of statement only scientists are going to understand really.
😬
Come off of that pedestal: I can see your panties.
Originally posted by inimalist I only came across Tyson recently, and hadn't seen this, but it is in the very same vein as Harris' opinions on the term, and entirely in line with my attraction to anarchism and deconstructing the way we are, ourselves, participants and creators of the oppression that authoritative institutions produce. Harris, this type of deconstruction of institutions, that is like some of the most formative stuff in my personal beliefs.
I have no idea what this is about....more like, I have no idea how you bridge the gap between agnosticism; and anarchism and authoritative institutions.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's explicitly wrong.This is correct:
Actually, it is not. Belief is a true dichotomy. Either one holds a belief or he does not. With regard to the existence of a god, one who holds that a god exists is a theist. All others are atheists. This includes those who hold that knowledge of the existence of a god is incomplete, incomprehensible, or otherwise unknowable. For one who is uncertain whether a god exists cannot also hold that a god does exist, because one cannot both question and affirm a truth claim simultaneously.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Actually, it is not.
Actually, it is.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Belief is a true dichotomy. Either one holds a belief or he does not. With regard to the existence of a god, one who holds that a god exists is a theist. All others are atheists. This includes those who hold that knowledge of the existence of a god is incomplete, incomprehensible, or otherwise unknowable. For one who is uncertain whether a god exists cannot also hold that a god does exist, because one cannot both question and affirm a truth claim simultaneously.
It's a false dichotomy to think that there is a necessary "yes" or "no". There is a clear "third kind" and part of Huxley's original reasoning. He did not like the binary choice given him and built off of the philosophical ideas of others to come up with "agnostic" which means "without gnosis" which in turn means "without knowledge".
Basically, by your logic, I am an atheist: a practicing Mormon that prays to God, by your opinion, is an atheist. Also, by your label, about 99% of all religious people are also atheist because very few will claim gnostic theism. Clearly, you are wrong.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Actually, it is not. Belief is a true dichotomy. Either one holds a belief or he does not.
This is correct, however "agnosticism" is not a statement about the belief in a God or not, it is just a doubt or denial of evidence. You can believe things without evidence (like all theists do).
DDM's chart is correct in concept, imo, although it is not to scale, I think there is only a very tiny sliver of agnostic theists compared to agnostic atheists.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Basically, by your logic, I am an atheist: a practicing Mormon that prays to God, by your opinion, is an atheist. Also, by your label, about 99% of all religious people are also atheist because very few will claim gnostic theism. Clearly, you are wrong.
its almost like people don't appreciate simple charts that try to tell them what they believe!
😛
Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, it is.It's a false dichotomy to think that there is a necessary "yes" or "no". There is a clear "third kind" and part of Huxley's original reasoning. He did not like the binary choice given him and built off of the philosophical ideas of others to come up with "agnostic" which means "without gnosis" which in turn means "without knowledge".
Basically, by your logic, I am an atheist: a practicing Mormon that prays to God, by your opinion, is an atheist. Also, by your label, about 99% of all religious people are also atheist because very few will claim gnostic theism. Clearly, you are wrong.
Originally posted by Bardock42
This is correct, however "agnosticism" is not a statement about the belief in a God or not, it is just a doubt or denial of evidence. You can believe things without evidence (like all theists do).DDM's chart is correct in concept, imo, although it is not to scale, I think there is only a very tiny sliver of agnostic theists compared to agnostic atheists.
Even though faith is belief in the absence of evidence, if faith is the rationale for a belief, then faith is being used as evidence.
If A, then B = Because of A, I believe B = By faith, I believe in the existence of a god
Theists who claim Agnosticism are not claiming no evidence, they are claiming no material evidence.
If they were truly Agnostic, then they could not properly conclude that a god exists from a denial of evidence.